Jump to content

Religulous


Thunderbroom

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Almost certainly. I'm always willing to look at any evidence others present. The reverse seems to me to be often untrue. The evidence I present is dismissed out of hand, and when I question the evidence others present, I'm the bad guy.


That's my perception, anyway, and I think it has been borne out in this thread.

 

Nobody's calling you the bad guy. I think that part of the problem with these online forum things is that there's no verbal or facial emotion to go with the words. If we were all sitting around a table with a few beers, I suspect that the conversation may have gone much differently. As much as I love nit-picking and having my words nit-picked, not everyone appreciates it. I take it as being a flaw in their personalities though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Nevertheless, it is inherent in the medium. It is a risk one takes in posting here. If one wants to post religious views without that happening,- or any other views, for that matter - then another type of forum might be better.

Rics suck. Deal with it pinhead. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You don't need to 'break it down' for me. I COMPLETELY and perfectly understand what both sides are saying. What I said remains true.

 

 

It seems to me that I do. You said, "You both understand what you're saying and believe the result happened in different ways." I have made no such claim. I do not believe that the result happened in any particular way. All I'm saying in this is that vanlatte's conclusion is not warranted by the evidence presented. He has presented evidence of correlation, but not of causation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Are you saying then that you have no official position in life? I'd say that you're looking at some of the same info that has influenced many others and reached a different conclusion. And why do you care about the conclusions that others have reached?

 

 

Because it was posted here as if it were fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
All I'm saying in this is that vanlatte's conclusion is not warranted by the evidence presented. He has presented evidence of correlation, but not of causation.

But it made sense to post it. I'm a firm believer (at least for this week) that people act in ways that make sense to them. I guess I'm not understanding why you take such issue with it, not that it matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It seems to me that I do. You said, "You both understand what you're saying and believe the result happened in different ways." I have made no such claim. I do not believe that the result happened in any particular way. All I'm saying in this is that vanlatte's conclusion is not warranted by the evidence presented. He has presented evidence of correlation, but not of causation.



k :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are also perversions of the teachings. Just because a few choose to take ones teachings and run in the wrong direction doesn't necessarily make the teacher wrong -- a baby and bathwater thing.

 

 

Well, that was my point.

 

 

And I'd take issue with your "almost all religious fundamentalist organizations" comment, it's a pretty narrow minded and short sighted view of things.

 

 

I'll change it.

 

Any religious fundamentalist group I'm familiar with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You're talking about Fred Phelps's group. They're from my neck of the woods so I'm pretty familiar with them. That's not exactly what they claim, they think everying is the result of us allowing homosexuality. However it should be noted that Phelps's group is basically just his extended family, and that many people (myself included) think their motive has more to do with provoking a reaction that they can sue over (they are all lawyers) than it does an actual religious belief.

 

 

Well I can honestly say I haven't looked too far into it. They were featured on a political television show here. Those comments were derived from a minister, or reverend, of that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I doubt there is a person on the planet that thinks these maniacs are anywhere
near
"religious".

 

 

Depends on your definition, doesn't it?

 

Personally I heard them using God as a justification and doing God's will. Now whether that's in line with whichever God they are referring to is largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There's a strong connection to religion = group is religious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...